|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
I did not, for pretty much the same reasons that haukex outlined in his reply. (One thing I'll add is that modern SEO guidance suggests that sites/pages are punished for abusing Hx elements.) Otherwise, I relied on my experience and intuition.
At 14:1, the direction of the vote tally was pretty clear (especially since I was reasonably certain I posted the lone "keep" vote). Other changes have been made with lower consideration ratios.)
Indeed, if it hadn't been an <H1> issue, I might've been tempted to quietly unconsider the node and move on.
Thus, my misgivings weren't whether the <H1> was going to be edited, but rather how to do so in a way that kept as much of the original voice, tone, and intent (while perhaps blunting the snarkasm a shade).
And as far as the other edits go, those were also thoughtful and considered. As I'm sure you're aware, the site's framework was developed under the rules of HTML ~3.x. Modern markup is different. We're supposed to use semantic elements and to close tags that need to be closed. (Such cleanup is a habit, something I've done pretty much since I first became a janitor.) Given that such changes do not affect the content of the node, it's hard to see them as "vandalism.")
(I also clean up common language mistakes such as misused "it's", "you're", "they're", and so on. When I mention it in my change notes, it's a gentle heads-up to the attentive.)
In any event, none of my changes were meant to be petty or to vandalize.
Like haukex, I generally prefer to handle such things quietly, privately /msg-ing the OP with suggestions.
My advice to the AM is, essentially, log in and post publicly. I continue to believe that transparency is the best way to contribute effectively.
P.S. I'm sure someone will chime in that this should be seen as another reason why anonymous posting should be disabled. I respectfully disagree.